[Reader-list] Your views on the book "Satya Darshini" by christian missionaries

[anupam chakravartty]

Thanks Murali for responding so quickly. A child is not curious essentially
about the identity of the father, if you would ask. A child just wants a
caring father. Truth is elusive, it causes suffering too but that's just one
way of looking at it.
- regards anupam

On 8/30/09, Murali V <murali.chalam at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> I have no Safron agenda, and if that is your judgement It is your choice.
>
> There are certain things that you have to trust. A classic example is
> the mother telling her kid who the father is, as she is the only
> person who can certify that. Well for the sake of argument, if one
> extends this search for truth on this as well it is only going to
> cause unwanted sufferings to both.
>
> Regards,
> V Murali
>
> On Sun, Aug 30, 2009 at 3:12 PM, anupam chakravartty<c.anupam at gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > Dear Murali
> >
> > Moral responsibility also includes not saying things which are
> unqualified,
> > unproven. moral responsibility is not to feed half truths to people. you
> say
> > unless "one understands the bad": which means what? what is this
> > understanding that you are referring to and how will it help in
> assimilating
> > good as a consequence? it is sad, that to prove your saffron propaganda u
> > can go to any lenght. i am also a hindu (that's what my parents told me)
> and
> > i dont buy hatred crap that is been fed to everyone in this forum
> especially
> > by certain group of persons. i have to right to critically evaluate any
> kind
> > of text in my pursuit, for instance, was sita really raped by ravana? was
> > ram justified in asking Sita to leave after she war of Lanka? if i start
> > believing in your kind of morality i am done. instead, i will have to
> > critically assess my belief systems... find out truths or sub-texts of
> what
> > has been told. every person should do that, else everyone will be misled.
> > there has to be a conflict of ideas but it cannot be extended to a
> physical
> > realm because we are human beings, which is why such forums are helpful.
> >
> > on one hand, certain people cry foul over the imposition of hijab. there
> are
> > several people of varied hues, from turkey to iran, to sufi poets to
> > Pakistani writers to most recently the saffronised lot who have
> questioned
> > the role of the hijab. it is not the case (leaving aside the sectarian
> > concerns) that they have something against Islam, they are asking a
> question
> > which is critical...why a hijab for a woman? THAT calls for discussion.
> > however our friends from saffron bogey, on many occasions, i have noticed
> > that in a discreet manner the issue of hijab has been turned and twisted
> to
> > place a blame on the whole community. rashneek kher, someone who
> otherwise
> > posts messages on Panun Kashmir suddenly decides to highlight North
> Kashmir
> > College because she doesnt like the imposition of hijab. instead of
> > discussing at lenght about women's emanicipation and parallel issues
> > "attached" to the hijab, she invokes the security-terrorist-fear-freedom
> > rhetoric for something which is not even associated with imposition of
> hijab
> > (this is from the very report she posted in the list). this doesnt do
> > justice to the cause, not even to Kashmiri Pandits or the hijab and its
> > imposition.
> >
> > I am ready to discuss what you call a blasphemy not because I have a
> hidden
> > agenda. I am speaking of a country which has been scarred by the sons of
> her
> > own soil, if you know what i mean.  I dont need to be adventurous to
> > question a book or a work of literature or anything of that sort. i dont
> > have to be cowed down by your threats ("All the best in your future
> > adventure in this space" -- as if i am jumping on the fire lit up by
> you).
> >
> > a blasphemy is a not personal attack per se, not on you or me. it doesnt
> > pick out one person and say: look what you reading according to me is
> shit.
> > infact, it challenges the premises on which a particular argument (for
> > example, the argument about the existence of god or even for that matter,
> > the athiest's argument) or plot ( in case of  Ramayana) or a "villian"
> such
> > as Ravana is depicted. the author is not flawless. if an argument is
> > logically valid, it may not conform to rules of the existing moral
> > standards. but how do we proceed: should we just shut up and not talk
> about
> > it? is there a gag on our thoughts? i remember, sometime back when the
> issue
> > of Savita Bhabhi was discussed. I was slightly worried (and very critical
> > also) to even talk about it because the value that one places to a
> > relationship is profound than the other givens. infact i went to the
> lenght
> > of accusing the creators to be a part of some sinister American porn
> > industry. however, in course of time, reading more about it, i realise
> that
> > this project is a reflection of what's happening behind the curtains
> (also
> > the veil). there are women in wearing ghoonghats and purchasing porn from
> > their neighbourhood CD shop. yes fat Hindu middle class women enjoying
> every
> > bit of the movie, while a calendar of Shiva and Parvati with their half
> > closed (or who knows stoned) eyes blessing them with their palms in the
> > background. there is nothing immoral or blasphemous about it.
> >
> > this "ideal" picture can only manifest itself as some kind of doubt. it
> is
> > not pop-spirituality that i am referring to sir (by the virtue of which
> you
> > keep saying "hinduism is a way of life", being a Banarsi Thug is also a
> way
> > of life quite close to the heart of hinduism, following every word of the
> > scripture). no wonder the purists (i consider them as the biggest thugs)
> > keep pushing the adjective "sacred" to Ramayana or other such texts, or
> even
> > "holy" to the Bible. did valmiki, a reformed bandit ever tell you in your
> > sleep that he is writing a *sacred* book call Ramayana? at the most, he
> > could have said that he is writing about this ideal king ( who also falls
> > from grace in the hands of his two sons) but he hasnt written anywhere, a
> > preface...that this book is sacrosanct or you are not allowed to copy the
> > words or something like it is copyrighted. it was open for
> interpretations,
> > translations and even a parody also ( as done by a legendary theatre
> group
> > in assam, Bhaya Mama).
> >
> > it is only the brahminical tradition of knowledge gathering that
> considers
> > written testimony to be a valid and a pure source of knowledge. can you
> > guess why Murali? because that established a brahmin's authorship over
> the
> > knowledge systems marginalising others. with a brahmin surname that i
> have,
> > i feel like con. so my forefathers (that is if i am being asked to trace
> a
> > lineage), were conning the rest of the folk, telling them that look this
> is
> > god, this is ram and you ought to follow the order because it is written.
> on
> > second thoughts, how many puranas have you read Murali? I can bet, you
> > havent even seen a purana in your lifetime or even if u have seen it,
> never
> > bothered to read it because you are already following this commandment --
> > the written word is the truth (what a way to get away with one's
> writing).
> >
> >  - anupam
> >
> > On 8/30/09, Murali V <murali.chalam at gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> Dear Rakesh JI,
> >>
> >> I am sure I need not mention that unless one understands the bad, one
> >> cannot assimilate the good. To highlight the bad is also ones moral
> >> responsibility.
> >>
> >> Regards,
> >> V Murali
> >>
> >> On Sun, Aug 30, 2009 at 9:29 AM, Rakesh Iyer<rakesh.rnbdj at gmail.com>
> >> wrote:
> >> > Murali ji
> >> >
> >> > There are many things I wonder about the religions which we follow,
> and
> >> > these are great indeed. What is important to note is to look at
> positive
> >> > sides of these and not on the negative side. What is required is to
> learn
> >> > good out of things, not bad.
> >> >
> >> > Gandhi did many bad things as well. So must have Muhammad.. Even Ram
> and
> >> > Krishna can't be spared. And Christ may also have done some as well.
> What
> >> we
> >> > must do is to learn good from them, good being good for the people
> >> entirely,
> >> > not just for us alone. Not bad things like marrying a girl of my
> >> daughter's
> >> > age without her understanding what marriage is all about, or having
> 1,000
> >> > wives, or attributing an earthquake to the practice of untouchability.
> >> (all
> >> > of which may have contexts, but to be just replicated from that life
> as
> >> it
> >> > is into today's times would be wrong. And even the particular act in
> that
> >> > own context may be wrong)
> >> >
> >> > So therefore, I may believe in some Ram, but only with the intention
> of
> >> > taking good from Ram's life, not certainly bad. And all that good has
> to
> >> be
> >> > based upon reason and social good and freedom as well.
> >> >
> >> > So Al-Qaeda or RSS, both are the same to me. Al Qaeda believes in
> Islamic
> >> > nationalism, RSS  believes in Hindu nationalism (which they equate
> with
> >> > Indian nationalism). But they can't and shouldn't be given the right
> to
> >> > enforce their lifestyles or values they believe in, on others. Their
> >> culture
> >> > seems to be a copy of what the British Raj was all about: 'civilizing
> >> those
> >> > being ruled by us'.
> >> >
> >> > Regards
> >> >
> >> > Rakesh
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >>
> > _________________________________________
> > reader-list: an open discussion list on media and the city.
> > Critiques & Collaborations
> > To subscribe: send an email to reader-list-request at sarai.net with
> subscribe in the subject header.
> > To unsubscribe: https://mail.sarai.net/mailman/listinfo/reader-list
> > List archive: &lt;https://mail.sarai.net/pipermail/reader-list/>
>